General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Evil females

Started by Mr. F. Le Mur · · Last activity · 2 posts · 410 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
23 September 2003
Last activity
23 September 2003
Original author
Mr. F. Le Mur
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
410
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On 14 Sep 2003 03:15:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Steve) wrote:

    ->Then the babies have arrived.
    ->
    ->At this point things change.
    ->
    ->The man still wants/needs sex ... but the woman doesn't! The babies
    ->have been born - all the woman's attention is focussed on them - and
    ->suddenly, sex is unnecessary to the woman and even becomes repugnant
    ->to her. The male begins to be seen as the beast!!! With one thought on
    ->his mind - which of course is correct, the male manufacturing
    ->something like 9 million sperm every 24 hours!
    ->
    ->So the separation and the hatred have begun. To finish either in the
    ->law courts, or a cold and dead marriage.

    "Four years may be the length of our ancestral, biological
    “breeding season.” Human brain physiology for infatuation
    and attachment seems to fit this interval."

    http://mkuijsten.tripod.com/pdf/evolution.pdf
    ....
    A census taken in such diverse areas as South Africa, Japan,
    Morocco, the U.S., the Soviet Union, Greece, and El Salvador
    showed that there are three peaks times when couples most
    frequently divorce. These three peaks are couples married
    for four years, couples between the ages of 25–29, and couples
    with one or no children. These divorce peaks are found in
    countries with both high and low divorce rates. Also,
    in the U.S., the overall pattern is similar in the past four
    decades, despite the rise in the divorce rate. So-called
    primitive cultures also yield similar information.

    “All of these people differ widely in religion, economy,
    political views, per capita income, and social structure.”4
    So why the common peaks in divorce? A possible answer is
    common brain physiology.

    “Psychiatrists divide the love between a man and a woman into
    two fundamental stages: the attraction phase and the attachment
    phase.”5 Michael Liebowitz, a psychiatrist at New York State
    Psychiatric Institute, theorizes that the attraction phase
    is “caused by increased activity in the brain of phenylethylamine
    or other natural brain stimulants.”6 John Money, a sexologist
    at John Hopkins University, suggests that among lovers who
    see each other regularly, this stage of intense emotion can
    only last two or three years. Liebowitz theorizes that “the
    brain’s tolerance for these natural aphrodisiacs grows,
    eventually dulling the sensation of intense infatuation.”7

    Then the attachment stage sets in, which is associated with
    a different set of brain chemicals. Liebowitz attributes these
    systems to our evolutionary heritage:

    For primitive man, two aspects of relating to the opposite
    sex where important for survival as a species. The first was
    to have males and females become attracted to each other for
    long enough to have sex and reproduce. The second was for the
    males to become strongly attached to the female so that they
    stayed around while the females were raising their young and
    helped to gather food, find shelter and teach the kids certain
    skills. Nature seems quite determined that we fall in love;
    she has dedicated less evolutionary energy to maintaining
    that state.

    Another important fact is that marriage does not imply fidelity.
    Based on information from the late 1940s, Alfred Kinsey estimated
    [Hasn't Kinsey been mostly debunked?]
    that 1/3 of all married men and 1/4 of all married women are
    unfaithful. The statistics have risen since then. Infidelity is
    common in many cultures, even when it is punished by death.8

    Remarriage is also common where ever divorce is. United Nations
    records show that 5/6 of divorced men and 4/5 of divorced women
    remarry, half of the time within three years.9

    Monogamy is rare in nonhuman mammals. Usually if mammals form a
    bond it is only because more than one parent is needed to raise
    the young. When the young are raised though infancy, the bond
    is broken. Examples of this are foxes and bears. Serial monogamy
    is found in non-mammals such as robins.

    Perhaps—like these other animals that mate only for a breeding
    season—the human pair bond originally evolved to last only long
    enough to raise a single child through infancy. There was no
    reason for a couple to remain together unless a second child
    was conceived.

    Four years may be the length of our ancestral, biological
    “breeding season.” Human brain physiology for infatuation and
    attachment seems to fit this interval. Also, births are
    commonly spaced about four years apart among groups of Australian
    aborigines as well as among the traditional Kung Bushmen.10

    The reason that the “breeding season” is comparatively long
    with humans is because human infants are born less developed
    and they have a longer childhood than any primate species.

    Americans idealize lifelong marriage; they equate divorce
    with failure. But among our ancestors, there may have been
    biological advantages to changing mates during the reproductive
    years. A male or female who changed mates during his or her
    reproductive years would have produced genetically more
    varied young, probably enhancing the likelihood that his or
    her lineage would survive in fluctuating environments.11
    ....

  2. Mr. F. Le Mur <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    On 14 Sep 2003 03:15:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Steve)


    Quoted message said:


    ->Then the babies have arrived.
    ->
    ->At this point things change.
    ->
    ->The man still wants/needs sex ... but the woman doesn't! The babies
    ->have been born - all the woman's attention is focussed on them -


    and

    Quoted message said:

    ->suddenly, sex is unnecessary to the woman and even becomes


    repugnant

    Quoted message said:

    ->to her. The male begins to be seen as the beast!!! With one thought


    on

    Quoted message said:

    ->his mind - which of course is correct, the male manufacturing
    ->something like 9 million sperm every 24 hours!
    ->
    ->So the separation and the hatred have begun. To finish either in


    the

    Quoted message said:

    ->law courts, or a cold and dead marriage.

    "Four years may be the length of our ancestral, biological
    ìbreeding season.î Human brain physiology for infatuation
    and attachment seems to fit this interval."

    http://mkuijsten.tripod.com/pdf/evolution.pdf
    ....

    Yup, I pointed that out in my "Love is a Drug" cartoon...

    Quoted message said:

    A census taken in such diverse areas as South Africa, Japan,
    Morocco, the U.S., the Soviet Union, Greece, and El Salvador
    showed that there are three peaks times when couples most
    frequently divorce. These three peaks are couples married
    for four years, couples between the ages of 25ñ29, and couples
    with one or no children. These divorce peaks are found in
    countries with both high and low divorce rates. Also,
    in the U.S., the overall pattern is similar in the past four
    decades, despite the rise in the divorce rate. So-called
    primitive cultures also yield similar information.

    ìAll of these people differ widely in religion, economy,
    political views, per capita income, and social structure.î4
    So why the common peaks in divorce? A possible answer is
    common brain physiology.

    ìPsychiatrists divide the love between a man and a woman into
    two fundamental stages: the attraction phase and the attachment
    phase.î5 Michael Liebowitz, a psychiatrist at New York State
    Psychiatric Institute, theorizes that the attraction phase
    is ìcaused by increased activity in the brain of phenylethylamine
    or other natural brain stimulants.î6 John Money, a sexologist
    at John Hopkins University, suggests that among lovers who
    see each other regularly, this stage of intense emotion can
    only last two or three years. Liebowitz theorizes that ìthe
    brainís tolerance for these natural aphrodisiacs grows,
    eventually dulling the sensation of intense infatuation.î7

    Then the attachment stage sets in, which is associated with
    a different set of brain chemicals. Liebowitz attributes these
    systems to our evolutionary heritage:

    For primitive man, two aspects of relating to the opposite
    sex where important for survival as a species. The first was
    to have males and females become attracted to each other for
    long enough to have sex and reproduce. The second was for the
    males to become strongly attached to the female so that they
    stayed around while the females were raising their young and
    helped to gather food, find shelter and teach the kids certain
    skills. Nature seems quite determined that we fall in love;
    she has dedicated less evolutionary energy to maintaining
    that state.

    Actually, it's probably the state where the parents would be *most*
    fiercely
    protective. These researchers forgot to mention that *other*
    chemicals often
    come into play to help maintain families and social units. They do
    not produce
    the intense feelings that love and infatuation do, but what they do
    create are
    feelings of comfort and security; this is the reason *other* marriages
    can
    last for years. IMO it's probably not ultimately the marriage that
    keeps couples
    together, but how close and supportive their larger social circle is.
    (Which would
    represent the "tribe" with regards to ancestral humans).

    Quoted message said:

    Another important fact is that marriage does not imply fidelity.
    Based on information from the late 1940s, Alfred Kinsey estimated
    [Hasn't Kinsey been mostly debunked?]
    that 1/3 of all married men and 1/4 of all married women are
    unfaithful. The statistics have risen since then. Infidelity is
    common in many cultures, even when it is punished by death.8

    Remarriage is also common where ever divorce is. United Nations
    records show that 5/6 of divorced men and 4/5 of divorced women
    remarry, half of the time within three years.9

    Monogamy is rare in nonhuman mammals. Usually if mammals form a
    bond it is only because more than one parent is needed to raise
    the young. When the young are raised though infancy, the bond
    is broken. Examples of this are foxes and bears.

    That is incorrect; bears do not pair-bond while foxes, coyotes, wolves
    and other wild canids often mate for life.
    http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2003/lyons/social%20relationships.html
    (although foxes often only pair up for one litter depending on
    population density). Bears give birth while in winter torpor and do
    not need help during this time; while pregnant/nursing female canids
    are often not in an ideal state to hunt, and so benefit from help from
    their mates.

    Quoted message said:

    Serial monogamy
    is found in non-mammals such as robins.

    Perhapsólike these other animals that mate only for a breeding
    seasonóthe human pair bond originally evolved to last only long
    enough to raise a single child through infancy.

    It's interesting to note that foxes may or may not pair-bond for life,
    depending on their population density and food availability. Perhaps
    this same phenomena applies to humans as well. The greater the
    numbers and the easier resource availability is, the "cheaper" life
    is; therefore the species can afford to take more risks.

    Quoted message said:

    There was no
    reason for a couple to remain together unless a second child
    was conceived.

    One very important difference you're leaving out is that ancestral
    humans (as well as the majority of other highly intelligent species)
    -- unlike the other monogamous animal species mentioned -- lived in
    tribes. Offspring were looked after not only by the parents but by
    relatives and other tribal members. This is referred to as
    "alloparenting" and occurs in many other highly intelligent, social
    species: elephants, dolphins, wolves, baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas,
    etc. In such communal arrangements with multiple guardians the
    species can "afford" to have offspring with a slower maturation rate
    (and thus a longer learning phase) and thus can "afford" to invest
    more in the area of evolving intelligence. The "four years" thing
    might have mainly do with the initial fierce protection of the mother
    and infant when they are at their most vulnerable. Or perhaps, it
    might also be a result of being worn out from all the child care
    duties formerly assumed by grandmothers and aunts.

    Quoted message said:

    Four years may be the length of our ancestral, biological
    ìbreeding season.î Human brain physiology for infatuation and
    attachment seems to fit this interval. Also, births are
    commonly spaced about four years apart among groups of Australian
    aborigines as well as among the traditional Kung Bushmen.10

    The reason that the ìbreeding seasonî is comparatively long
    with humans is because human infants are born less developed
    and they have a longer childhood than any primate species.

    Quoted message said:

    Americans idealize lifelong marriage; they equate divorce
    with failure. But among our ancestors, there may have been
    biological advantages to changing mates during the reproductive
    years. A male or female who changed mates during his or her
    reproductive years would have produced genetically more
    varied young, probably enhancing the likelihood that his or
    her lineage would survive in fluctuating environments.11
    ....


    You could probably use the same explanation as applied to most other
    species. "They" are discovering that animals previously thought to be
    exclusively monogamous are not necessarily so:
    http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/winter98/counter.htm (What this
    implies is that Murphy's Law happens in nature, too...)

    Now if only science could invent a "drug" for those of us who are
    weary of the whole game...

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.